logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.25 2019고정244
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. On June 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 18:45 on June 15, 2018, the summary of the facts charged sets down even after the victim B (V, 27 years old), etc. inside the subway line 9 lines in Seocho-gu Seoul, to the moving station, the subway line in Seocho-gu, Seoul, following the victim B (V, 27 years old), and brought about the victim's sexual flag to the victim's left right side.

Accordingly, the defendant committed indecent acts against the victim in means of public transportation.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged, without any reasonable doubt.

At the time of the case, there were many passengers in subway 9 lines, and the body of both the defendant and the victim as well as other passengers are fasted.

B. The video recorded by the police does not have the face of the victim, such as the Defendant’s her buttboard, with his or her sexual organ attached to the victim, as stated in the facts charged.

C. The victim prepared a written statement at an investigative agency stating that “The victim was too displeasy with the reputation other than that of the defendant, etc. after the defendant et al.

However, in the court, there was no perception that “the case would be specially disconvened at the time of the incident or intentionally contacted a man’s body.” The police station stated to the same purport, but it stated to the effect that “the police officer prepared a written statement as inevitable because it was written as the police officer was written.”

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and did not disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence in accordance

arrow